Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two conspiracy theories about cola

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 146 posts

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#41

Post by tsimionescu »

giantg2 wrote: post #34
daveguy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. You would have to have a placebo controlled test to confirm placebo vs "just happens to last 8 hours". This is what placebo controls are for.

I generally agree. The secondary (and more interesting) question is whether placebo effect is applicable to infants. Based on the theory of how placebo works, it seems it might not be. It seems there are no studies on that. At least I couldn't find any.

Placebo mostly just means "good effect unrelated to intended treatment (active substance, surgical procedure etc)". That can include psychological effects of treatment (such as in pain management, depression, heart rate and blood pressure, and a handful of others).

More commonly though, the placebo effect is just natural progression of the disease, errors in data collection (such as patients trying to be helpful and confirming that vague symptoms have somewhat improved), or errors in data analysis (such as lab techs thinking they've seen something in the sample that they expected to see there).

The psychological effects may or may not apply to infants - that's a somewhat separate question. The other effects definitely do - it's perfectly plausible that a lab tech looking for an improvement in an infant's blood sample after treatment "finds" it.

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#42

Post by curiousgeorgio »

Good article, but I'm skeptical of the point raised in the "P.S." section (which leads me to doubt some of the other points in the article):

> aspartame has basically zero negative effects ...diet cola is much safer than real cola.

I won't argue that sugar isn't bad for you, but I don't think the science (and my own observation) agrees that diet cola - specifically aspartame - is "much safer" or somehow healthier. The linked WebMD page mentions this:

> The study found that consuming a low-calorie sweetener was not, by itself responsible for slowing metabolism. However, when combined with other carbohydrates, or fats, the consumption of the non-sucrose sweetener did lead to a significant drop in metabolic rate.

We don't generally ingest things in isolation, so you have to account for what an ingredient does in the context of an average diet accompanying the ingredient, and in that sense, aspartame absolutely does have significant negative effects. Those effects may or may not be worse than real sugar, but after the whole switch from "margarine is a healthier butter substitute" to "turns out margarine might be worse for you than butter" (and other similar upended dietary advice), I'm personally included to prefer sugar - in moderation - over sugar substitutes.

And that's another problem with sugar substitutes: claims that they have no negative effects encourage people to consume "diet" products in very high amounts - often more than the products they replace, so you're no longer comparing equal amounts of the substances. For me, drinking a sugary soda is an infrequent, deliberate decision - one I don't take lightly. There's a guilt that comes with it, but I think that's a good thing to make me think twice. But I also see people drinking diet soda all day, every day, thinking there are essentially no negative consequences (when there obviously are).

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#43

Post by tsimionescu »

ncmncm wrote: post #31
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #28

Neither of which involve an alleged conspiracy. I must say that I find the word “conspiracy theory” to have rather odd usage in common parlance that does not seem to have much to do with conspiracies but I'm not sure what the actual definition is either. If anything, perhaps it's actual semantics are little more than “allegations of wrongdoing the speaker considers to be false”.

A conspiracy requires a crime. Poisoning millions of people should maybe be a crime, but it manifestly is not today, as numerous soda company executives move about freely, just as paint executives did and tobacco executives still do. Killing a dozen people by shooting up a bus station is national news. Killing millions, year in and year out, slowly enough, is just business.

That's a needlessly specific definition for "conspiracy" in common usage, and it's wrong. A conspiracy is a secret plot by more than one person to do something that the speaker (and presumably listener) considers nefarious. Whether that nefarious thing is illegal or not doesn't enter into it, unless you're looking at the specific legal term 'conspiracy to [...]'.

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#44

Post by xboxnolifes »

ncmncm wrote: post #31
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #28

Neither of which involve an alleged conspiracy. I must say that I find the word “conspiracy theory” to have rather odd usage in common parlance that does not seem to have much to do with conspiracies but I'm not sure what the actual definition is either. If anything, perhaps it's actual semantics are little more than “allegations of wrongdoing the speaker considers to be false”.

A conspiracy requires a crime. Poisoning millions of people should maybe be a crime, but it manifestly is not today, as numerous soda company executives move about freely, just as paint executives did and tobacco executives still do. Killing a dozen people by shooting up a bus station is national news. Killing millions, year in and year out, slowly enough, is just business.

Pretty sure conspiracy only implies harm, not crime. Otherwise "criminal conspiracy" is pretty redundant.

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#45

Post by ncmncm »

latchkey wrote: post #39
ncmncm wrote: post #15

There is nothing harmless about liquid fructose, or liquid sugar (which is half fructose). The people who know the most about fructose blame it for the huge public health crisis that the US (and UK, Pakistan, India, and some other countries) are suffering, manifested as insulin resistance and type #2 diabetes, "metabolic syndrome". It kills way more than COVID. Specifically: fructose is mostly processed only by the l…

I stopped reading after the covid mention. [1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Faulty-...

Death is death.

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#46

Post by ncmncm »

antonzabirko wrote: post #30

Dynm, i can tell the difference between hfcs and non-hfcs soda. I get blockage near the vocal cords about 5 - 15 minutes after consuming it, so there's definitely something worse than sugar about it.

Sounds like allergy. (I am not a physician. This is not medical advice.)

Difference in trace constituents, triggering allergy, is completely plausible. But either way, it is the fructose identical in both that is actually poisoning you.

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#47

Post by Salgat »

djbusby wrote: post #38
smnrchrds wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Acids are certainly bad for teeth, but is it bad for anything else? I imagine stomach acid is more powerful than any soft drink and the drink ends up there a second after being swallowed. Is there any risk of downstream harm from food acids?

Heartburn and Acid-Reflux

Mind you this only exacerbates already dysfunctional stomachs. A normal healthy person can drink large amounts of soda without causing acid reflux.

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#48

Post by ncmncm »

tsimionescu wrote: post #43
ncmncm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A conspiracy requires a crime. Poisoning millions of people should maybe be a crime, but it manifestly is not today, as numerous soda company executives move about freely, just as paint executives did and tobacco executives still do. Killing a dozen people by shooting up a bus station is national news. Killing millions, year in and year out, slowly enough, is just business.

That's a needlessly specific definition for "conspiracy" in common usage, and it's wrong. A conspiracy is a secret plot by more than one person to do something that the speaker (and presumably listener) considers nefarious. Whether that nefarious thing is illegal or not doesn't enter into it, unless you're looking at the specific legal term 'conspiracy to [...]'.

There is anyway nothing secret about the amount of sugar is sodas.

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#49

Post by throw63738 »

pirate787 wrote: post #29

For context on the Mexican cola, US cola had sugar as well until the mid 1980s. The US sugar program restricts imports and keeps the domestic price for sugar high, which created a new market for milling corn into HFCS. HFCS is uniquely an American invention that's the result of massive government subsidies for corn and price support for sugar. If the government did not intervene in American sugar markets, cola would…

Everyone argues about sugar, but the true original is in Peru :)

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#50

Post by 323 »

Fanta contains exactly as much sugar as Cola, yet it doesn't contain phosphoric acid, nor does it cause people to throw up.

Q.E.D.

Also, the whole premise (sugar causing people to throw up) seems a bit weird. Think about honey, cakes, ...

Post reply on HN